Listening to everything.

[Shrunk]

As my music collection has continued to grow at a faster rate than I can listen to it, I've decided I need a systematic method to direct my listening.  To that end, I've compiled a (not so) short list of about 400 "essential" works that I'm going to listen to in roughly chronological order.  I starts with Bach and ends at Britten.  It's not that I don't also like earlier and later music, but I'm going to concentrate on the "core repertoire" for now before branching out.  I'm not going to be too dogmatic about it.  If I'm in the mood for a particular piece, I'll play it.  But on those frequent occasions when I can't decide what I want to hear, the decision will be made for me.

I figure this should take me a couple years, and I'm looking at is as a historical journey through Western music.  I'm part way thru Bach right now, having listened to the major choral and orchestral works, and now working thru the solo instrumental and keyboard works.  My wording probably makes this sound like a chore, but really it's anything but.

Has anyone else done anything like this, or do people just listen as they buy?

[Grazioso]

Sounds like a good plan, though may I suggest reading/listening to some guides and histories along the way to highlight important things and help you forge connections?

[Philoctetes]

Lists?!
Now you are talking my language.

[Que]

Well, 400 works is a lot!

The risk of buying while not keeping up with listening, is that - since your taste will evolve with listening - you'll end up with pieces/composers/performers you'll have "outgrown" before you ever heard it.

Q

[Shrunk]

Sounds like a good plan, though may I suggest reading/listening to some guides and histories along the way to highlight important things and help you forge connections?

Yeah, I'm doing that, too.  I have Michael Steinberg's three Listener's Guides, which I find are very helpful aids to getting into the inner workings and structures of the pieces, while also offering some historical context.  The list mainly came from Dubal's "Essential Canon of Classical Music".  The main goal of this exercise is to get out of the comfort zone of my tried-and-true favourites and get to know more of the essentail works as well as I do, say, Beethoven's symphonies.

[Bonehelm]

I don't listen in chronological order. I listen to music depending on their genre (orchestral, choral, chamber, etc). That way I get a clearer image of the contrast between different time periods. One moment I'm hearing Bachs' Mass in B, the next I'm doing Britten's War Requiem. 

[The new erato]

I don't listen systematically. I listen to my recent purchases and in-between I play older stuff as the fancy takes me. Since I started listening to classical music 30 + years ago I've had some idea of knowing the core repertoire reasonably well - defined as "the major works by the major composers". But Beethoven alone has, I guess, 40 major works. However I think I am more or less there, as well as gathering a goodly amount of other stuff as well, 30 years ago I would not have dreamt of having (and having listened to) 20 Handel operas, having a reasonable selection of Biber and Pisendel, a quite exhaustive Fran Martin shelf, etc, etc...

Latest aquisition: The Etcetera set of Hendrik Andriessen symphonies (currently in the post....)   

[Kullervo]

I use the "Ooh, Sounds Interesting" method. I walk around the library, pick up a CD, and say, "Ooh sounds interesting!" and just go from there. If I like what I hear, I listen to other things by the composer.

[Mark]

Interesting thread.

I've made a decision to focus the bulk of my listening (and CD buying) on works written between the time of Beethoven and about 1960. Still a very broad field, despite being only a slice of over 1,000 years of Western Art Music. This said, I also intend - from next year, in all likelihood - to give over a good proportion of the next, say, 500 works I acquire to what might be termed the 'core repertoire' ... a term I'm still not sure can be accurately defined, but there you go.

I want to reach a point at which I can say (if asked), 'Yes, I've heard/I own that'. But saying and doing are two very different kettles of fish. Being an explorative type of listener/buyer, I'm frequently drawn to the more obscure paths that weave their way through the world of classical music. If it came to a choice, for example, between adding to my collection a complete performance of Tchaikovsky's 'Nutcracker' (still don't have this), or a Tubin symphony or concerto, my money will almost certainly go on the latter. Not to be bloody minded: it's just how my curiosity works in matters of listening to and enjoying classical music.

So I suppose Kullervo's method works most frequently for me, with a strong element of Erato's (see above). But I'm very interested in Dubal's book and would welcome any thoughts on it as a useful guide to the major works which, in all probability, I don't yet have but should add to my shelves.

[The new erato]

Interesting thread.
If it came to a choice, for example, between adding to my collection a complete performance of Tchaikovsky's 'Nutcracker' (still don't have this), or a Tubin symphony or concerto, my money will almost certainly go on the latter. Not to be bloody minded: it's just how my curiosity works in matters of listening to and enjoying classical music.

Now that's a pice of core repertory I don't have. I have heard it of course, and therefore tend to think a lot like you, I'm not that keen on Thaikovsky in general and ballet in particular (Prokofiev excepted) and am also more hungry for hearing music I don't know.

[Shrunk]

But I'm very interested in Dubal's book and would welcome any thoughts on it as a useful guide to the major works which, in all probability, I don't yet have but should add to my shelves.

I've found it very useful and would recommend it as a first book to read on music history.  The title sells it short, as it is not just a list of works but also contains fairly complete biographies of the major composers.  The descriptions of the works included 3-4 recommended recordings each.

[Mark]

I've found it very useful and would recommend it as a first book to read on music history.  The title sells it short, as it is not just a list of works but also contains fairly complete biographies of the major composers.  The descriptions of the works included 3-4 recommended recordings each.

Thanks. That's good to know.

[Solitary Wanderer]

Yeah, I'm doing that, too.  I have Michael Steinberg's three Listener's Guides, which I find are very helpful aids to getting into the inner workings and structures of the pieces, while also offering some historical context.  The list mainly came from Dubal's "Essential Canon of Classical Music".  The main goal of this exercise is to get out of the comfort zone of my tried-and-true favourites and get to know more of the essentail works as well as I do, say, Beethoven's symphonies.

I have two of Steinbergs guides; the symphony and concerto volumes both of which are excellent.

I've had the Dubal book on my wish list for over a year; I must get it

[Scriptavolant]

I was planning to do something similar, basically uploading a lot of downloaded music on my mp3 (which keeps up to 10 giga).
I would be interested in books such as the ones mentioned before (Steinberg?), I'll probably order them on amazon, since they're not available in Italy.
Suitable titles to enhance understanding would be welcomed!

[Joan]

Admirable plan, Shrunk! May I ask you (and the other posters) a couple of questions:

Do you prefer to read about each work first, then listen to it; or do you prefer to listen "cold" as it were?

Are you taking notes on each work? That's something I wish had started doing years ago, especially now that I'm rediscovering music I haven't listened to in years (it would be fun to compare my reactions then and now)

I've always used the "ooh" method too (along with radio listening) but I think by continuing to rely on that alone, there are too many good things I'm never going to get around to hearing.

[Kullervo]

Admirable plan, Shrunk! May I ask you (and the other posters) a couple of questions:

Do you prefer to read about each work first, then listen to it; or do you prefer to listen "cold" as it were?

Are you taking notes on each work? That's something I wish had started doing years ago, especially now that I'm rediscovering music I haven't listened to in years (it would be fun to compare my reactions then and now)

I've always used the "ooh" method too (along with radio listening) but I think by continuing to rely on that alone, there are too many good things I'm never going to get around to hearing.

I will check out a piece if I read about it, especially if the composer has a huge oeuvre (like Mozart) with an odd mixture of great pieces and pieces he wrote while playing nine-ball. 

[George]

Admirable plan, Shrunk! May I ask you (and the other posters) a couple of questions:

Do you prefer to read about each work first, then listen to it; or do you prefer to listen "cold" as it were?

I like to read the liner notes first, unless I am familiar with a work, in which case I like to focus on the performance.

Are you taking notes on each work? That's something I wish had started doing years ago, especially now that I'm rediscovering music I haven't listened to in years (it would be fun to compare my reactions then and now)

Only when I am going to write a review or if I hear something on the radio that I like, I might write it down.

[stingo]

I've always been a curious one when it comes to listening - wanting to find out what piece sounds like has been one of the greatest draws. The "ooh" method certainly does work, as does listening to the opinions of those whose judgment you trust. For me, I'd find it hard to resist hearing Debussy's Cello Sonata considering that so much of his well-known work is for a full orchestra. Same thing with a Chopin piano concerto. And of course there are the "lesser" lights - not known to general public, but who are at least "on the radar" of classical music fans. Howard Hanson is one of my favorite composers (thanks mainly to Naxos' American Classics series) and I'm sure there are many, many more. The peril of course is it leads to a pokemon-type mentality where you "gotta catch 'em all". That said, there's certainly something to revisiting music one's already heard as well. Sometimes I'll "get" the music on rehearing it better than before, other times it becomes more opaque, but I think that's part of the beauty of the ephemeral experience.

[Florestan]

I'm kind of an Anarchist in this respect. I have absolutely no listening plans or lists. I listen to whatever fits my mood, fancies and whims. 

[Harry]

I'm kind of an Anarchist in this respect. I have absolutely no listening plans or lists. I listen to whatever fits my mood, fancies and whims. 

May I join your line, for it is the same with me.